welcome o to "this week in defense news." i'm vago muradian. a leading house republican offers his take to avoid sequestration and the outlook for military spending and military reform. but first, an exclusive interview with deputy defense secretary ash carter a week after the pentagon issued guidance to propair for as much as $50 billion in automatic cuts this year unless congress approving the deficit reduction package and new spending measures by april. hiring has been frozen and travel and training reduced and civilian worker furloughs and may follow. the guidelines came days before lawmakers edged toward a compromise to avert the so- called fiscal cliff.

house republicans agreeing to suspend the debt ceiling in exchange for senate democrats agreeing to pass a budget. all this comes as deputy -- as defense secretary leon panetta prepares to retire and former nebraska senator chuck hagel awaits senate confirmation to take his place. carter served for more than two years as the defense acquisition chief where he drove acquisition logistics and efficiency reforms becoming deputy secretary in october 2011. dr. carter great to have you back. >> thanks, good to be here with you vago. >> something that's been making headlines is secretary panetta changing the guidance to allow women to serve in combat roles that had been closed to them at one point on a standards based sort of way. but physical fitness standards aren't the same for both sections. are you guys -- sexes. are you guys going to have to establish new standards to make sure they are up for the task? >> we're not going to change standards that matter for war

fighting capability. and 237,000 now positions that used to be closed to women will now be presumptivively open to women. we are going to have to work through the implications of that. what that means and what's really and what isn't real as regards to the differences between men and women in these roles. that's why the secretary and the chiefs who recommended this want some time to work through -- >> 2016. >> through the details. you always find in changes like this that you have to think it through. you have to work it through. you can't think of everything up front so we're going to take a little time to make sure we get it right but we will get it right and the basic point is that unless somebody finds a good reason why a job can't be open to a woman, it's going to be open. >> right and that's the whole point of services petition or give a good case on why certain for example soft jobs or

whatever. to the issue now of the fiscal guidance, you were a big player in preparing all of the guidance that's gone out. to prepare the department both for sequestration but as well as continuing resolution expiring and so on. the critics have said this should have been done a long time ago. both to better prepare for the cuts and also to glaringly illustrate to lawmakers while avoiding sequestration is the why now, what changed? a lack of confidence on the department's side that congress for example might avert these? >> no, what's changed is that we're coming up to the moment in time in which first of all sequestration might hit in less than two months' time. >> right. >> but very importantly also we're on a continuing resolution which means we are stuck with the budget of last year category by category. >> right. >> and as the year goes on, then you have less and less time to adjust to that. now, the reason not to make

adjustments too early is these are not desirable things to do. they're not good for defense. so you don't want to do them until you have to. so we for each one, are trying to balance acting too early against acting too late. so let me give you an example. we are now starting to freeze hiring of civilians. we hire in the department about 1,000 people a week. in order to keep our -- our numbers up. >> uh-huh. >> and we would like to continue to do that. however, if i worried that i'm going to run short of money later in the fiscal year i better stop hiring. now that's not a good thing. that's jobs -- >> people for example. >> 44% of the people we hire are veterans. and we care about hiring veterans. and of course most importantly we care about getting the work done. these are not bureaucrats in washington with dod civilians, these are shipyard workers people who are doing important

things. we didn't want to take that step until it became too late. and until the balance of caution shifted in the other direction. that's why we've waited to act until now. now we've been planning for some time. and we've been doing that quietly because we haven't wanted to act as though sequestration or any of these things was -- either inevitable or certainly something that we could manage with ease. these are damaging destructive things to do. >> and you can -- you can see that. but there are some folks who say that even though they welcome the guidance, say they're not detailed enough. why isn't this guidance even more detailed than we've seen? >> well, what i did in the guidance i issued was say here are the categories in which i now authorize you to act. i want you and the various services and components to go out and come back and tell me exactly what you intend to do. and what i'm trying to do there

is balance between some decentralized execution which is necessary for something so vast. done so quickly. >> right. >> while making sure that i see what everybody's doing so that -- >> good ideas that also can be carried over. >> exactly and so i sit down with all the different services and components and they say here's what i'm doing. here's what i'm thinking of doing. >> right. >> they learn from one another. and i get to approve everything at once. so that's the reason for the two step -- >> process for the efficiency and the reform stuff we saw earlier. why are some of the cuts sort of being i want accomplishmented immediately? i mean -- implemented immediately? i mean it's looser for further decision. >> we're taking every step that we think is prudent now in the expectation that the continuing resolution might be extended to the whole year or sequester might half. so what we're trying to do is take steps that are reversible.

they're harmful if they last the whole year but if i take them now i'll be better off later in the year. but if sequester doesn't happen and it's not extended i can undo it earlier. an example. we're canceling some maintenance of ships. maintenance that's scheduled to occur later in the year. i'm canceling those contracts. now, if later in the year, the money comes through and all of this disaster about sequester and crs and so forth doesn't happen, i'll go ahead and do that maintenance, the cancellation of the maintenance is reversible. >> right. >> later in the year, i'm going to have to do things that are irreversible. that do irreversible harm -- >> for example? >> obviously i don't want to do that. furloughing people and letting them off. that -- >> the 20% pay caught and the giant -- cut and the giant gap in the furlough. >> more importantly reducing training which will have the consequence in the near term that units won't be ready to go to war. the ones that are available for

other contingencies. if it goads on long enough will do damage to redness that will be difficult and take years to reverse. we don't want to take that kind we don't want to take that kind of step until we it's been a long, tough year. a real test of what i'm made of. there were times i thought of giving in, but i did it. opened up that navy federal savings account and now we have this... ah. did it all online... it was easy. i don't hear any sweating. civilians... psh. 4 million members. 4 million stories. navy federal credit union.

we're back with dr. ashton carter the deputy secretary of defense. sir i want to take you to a question where folks are asking whether the plan that you guys built, the $487 billion that was going to cut is not going to be something that's going to actually have something that's going to have another couple of hundred billion dollars in cuts that are going to come on top

of it. secretary panetta repeatedly said no that's the plan. but doesn't prudence dictate even when strong supporters on the hill are saying that defense will likely get hit even if sequestration is averted. don't you have to start planning for that now? >> one aspect is that we have just absorbed a half a trillion dollars in cuts. and what i think the secretary panetta is saying and what i would say certainly is that as we approach the overall fiscal situation there, we need to look at the entire package. you can't pay our way out of our fiscal situation on the backs of discretionary spending or defense. so that's the first thing. the -- the -- we believe that we have now a strategy and resources that are well matched up and we understand that people are wondering what's going to be the next move in

the overall budget. what we're trying -- we have a very solid now matching of our program and with the country needs to the budget. and as people make decisions in the next round, they need to see what it is that the country needs for its defense and that's what we're showing them with this carefully thought out budget. >> but by this point you already would have been building the defense budget and it would be going to the congress in the beginning of february. obviously that's been delayed. do you have -- how are you going through the process of building a 2014 bucket plan at this point when you have basically no guidance coming to you on what your top lines are? >> we haven't officially received from omb from the fiscal guidance is. we know that down the road, the country's going to be dealing with the fiscal cliff. we are building now our budget for next year according to the plan that was in the budget control act which took half a trillion dollars out of defense. >> right. >> we're building to that plan now. that -- we will be ready for other contingencies and we're very good at that in this

department. but i think that when people see how much we've already had to absorb in the way of budget cuts including working to make the defense budget as efficient as we possibly can, they'll say -- they'll see that there's a real price for going further. >> i hope that they're listening because you guys have been transmitting how bad the stuff is going to be as it is much less if cuts are deeper. to the question of ma lee. france launched a major military operation there against al-qaeda, islamic insurgents and rebels and france has been asking the allies look time is of the essence in this fight and soliciting help from the al lice. but the united states is -- allies. but the united states has been criticized and slow and lukewarm in providing that support. the french complained that while they've gotten american intelligence and air lift support. tanker support has been lacking and then there's the question of being billed for the services. services received. and critics are saying that the

administration that this violates some of the administration's tenets. first we'll fight al-qaeda wherever it and we'll engage with allies. how do you answer that and what has been any of the slowing of support? >> we do support the french. that's a fight that we have a dog in. that is the fight against al- qaeda and the establishment potentially of a safe haven for al-qaeda and the islamic magrave up in the northern part of mali. we do support the french. we are doing things and wee not asking for reimbursement for the things that we're doing and the french as is very understandable and welcome, asked first for intelligence. then for transport. now we're discussing tanking with them trying to understand exactly -- >> so this is a complete misperception from your standpoint. >> it is. it is, we are really behind the french and we're trying to help them as a number of nations are trying to do. >> let me take you we've got

about 0 seconds left -- 30 seconds left and i want to take you to. you're going to have a new boss soon and you're staying on. what are the roles you see -- how do you see your role changing under chuck hagel if he's confirmed? >> well, i had a great relationship with secretary panetta and i think first of all, i'm his alter ego and that's the job of a deputy. so the alter ego to secretary hagel when he becomes secretary hagel. secondly. i do a lot of the day-to-day management of the department. >> right. >> for the secretary. and third, i try to organize his decision making environment so that he and the president can make decisions on the basis of the best possible information 789 that's what i do. >> dr. carter as always thank you for joining us. you for joining us. >> good to be here it's been a long, tough year. a real test of what i'm made of.

there were times i thought of giving in, but i did it. opened up that navy federal savings account and now we have this... ah. did it all online... it was easy. i don't hear any sweating. civilians... psh. 4 million members. 4 million stories. navy federal credit union.

. army clerk in the show we heard from -- earlier in the show we heard from ash carter on how the penalty gone is preparing itself for deep budget cuts if congress fails. many in washington are optimistic the worst can be averted after how's republicans a-- house republicans agreed to suspend the debt ceiling. a measure that the democratically controlled senate agreed to vote on. we went to capitol hill to meet with senator mac thornberry of texas who's the number two republican. i asked him what he thought about the guidance and whether it answered the questions that gop members have been raising.

>> not really. i think a lot of us wanted dod to be serious about explaining the effects of sequestration before we ever got to this point and that would have in our judgment helped motivate people to find another way. other spending cuts to take the place of the sequestration. and i still think there are a lot of questions as the services work through there with some -- this with some accounts exempt. some not. some are going to be hit pretty hard. >> overall from a good fashion and at least trying to make clear that some of those are going to be dramatic cuts? >> it was a beginning but i still think there are lots of details to be fleshed out that most people including most members of congress don't fully appreciate. just how painful this is going to be. >> you've been a bipartisan member up here and you're now one of the gop part of the gop

leadership. what's it going to take to strike a deal that averts sequestration, extends the cr, avoids the train wreck in a way that can leave the house but also be passed in the senate? >> well, i think everybody is grappling with that magic formula. you know the first thing you've got to have is a willingness to seek that compromise if you will. where nobody gets everything they want but everybody gets something that they think is important. and that willingness has got to come from the white house as well as the house and senate. i think from a lot of us, as we look at this, there's no way to get a handle on our budget situation without dealing with entitlements. it's already two-thirds of the budget. it's the fastest growing part of the budget. that has to be a part of this mix. >> democratic leaders have told me throughout this whole

process, that entitlement reform is an absolute must that at the end of the day we have to do that. we have to make sure that we get it right. inlike a -- unlike a tax change and folks are going to want to know what happened to the social security or medicare. but also an acknowledgment it's not going to get you the $4 trillion and that government spending cuts are going to be required for tax increases. you voted for the tax measure that we just saw. in part because you thought it was better than the alternative that it made permit innocent tax cuts that you wanted. what's the way to do this and is defense still going to be something that's on the table for cuts if you're going to avoid further tax increases and still reduce government spending? >> well, i think it -- defense is vulnerable. i would put it that way. whether sequestration gets turned off with other substituted savings, or whatever happens, we're going to see at best flat defense budgets i think as far as the eye can see. so that puts a burden on those

of us in congress on those committees as well as the pentagon to figure out how we get more out of the money we spend already on defense. i think that's the great challenge going ahead. it's defense reforms so that we get more out of what we spend. >> and the department has been trying to cut into defense reform. what are some of the other things you'd like to see to get more for each dollar spent on defense? >> we have to look at it across the board. we've had some sort of acquisition reform pass congress i think roughly every other year since i've been here and now most acknowledge it's worse than it's ever been. one for example proposes that we get rid of all regulation in the department of defense internal and external unless there's a specific decision by the secretary to put it back in. we're going to have to get more drastic than we thought of before. personnel reform needs to be a part of it but i think especially for the younger people coming into the service,

an automatic 20 year retirement, health care and so forth like we've had before, may not be part and -- part of the package moving ahead. and it may be in their best interests to have some greater flexibility on those personnel reforms. of course we're waiting on the commission now that is going to make some -- >> you think there might be some traction on that. >> absolutely, you cannot look at the growing part of the personnel part of the budget and say we cannot touch any of that. >> let's go to emerging threats where you're the chairman. what are the threats you see emerging that we are not or the administration and the government is not addressing at this point that you think should be addressed? >> well, i think there are some threats that are being addressed but maybe not adequately addressed. cyber is the big issue on our plate. is government -- does government have the tools including the legal authorities as well as the organizational structure and the money, et

cetera, to wage war in cyberspace? terrorism is another one. we've just seen these events in mali, algeria and so forth. it's not done. it's spreading in more places around the world. again do we have the legal authorities and are we able to act swiftly enough and do we have the military capability to go in and deal with the situation like the consulate in benghazi or the gas plant in algeria? i think those are some of the questions we'll be looking at in the months to come. >> do you think -- one of the things the president has said in his address was the necessity for the united states to whenever possible to engage to build alliances and to have conflict as a last resort. is he on the right track strategically do you think given the budgetary constraints right now? >> i think more and more of what we must do is work by, with and through others kind of the traditional definition of what special forces do. on the other hand, there are reports that the french have

asked for help with mali and we were reluctant to give that help. >> and you think we should have been much more forthcoming for example if a request like that came in. >> absolutely. and again, as i understand it, what they asked for was some refueling help and maybe some intelligence support. that's the sort of thing we're going to have to give allies when they're willing to put their troops on the ground. and so, again -- there's a number of questions. do we have the legal authorities to get aid in to help military swiftly enough and does it get all balled up in the bureaucratic nonsense? but we're going to have to do more of that. >> sir, thank you very much. >>

defense secretary leon panetta's decision to remove the last remaining bars to women in combat merely codifies reality that over the last decade women have been serving in combat. women have walked patrols as military police, manned machine guns on convoys, flown aircraft and conned warships and now even served on submarines but haven't been allowed in aftermaterialry or other special operations jobs. the change will be through 2016 and perms the services to -- permits is services to argue why select career fields should be immune from change. also unclear is whether women should be forced into battlefield jobs they never wanted. while male counterparts also deploy to combat. since women served under fire

with distinction losing lives and limbs, this change won't raise many ewe buys but it -- eyebrows but it will present challenges. second enough qualified women must seek the new jobs to prevent those who do from being isolated in all male units. third sexual harassment and asought remains -- say salt we mains a serious problem that must be stopped. women must meet necessary fill standards and all must abide by strict codes of conduct or face tough consequences. thank you for joining us for "this week in defense news." have a great evening. [ captions by: caption colorado, llc 800-775-7838 email: comments@captioncolorado.com ] alright everybody, get your heads up. now when i was in the military, i learned that if you stand together, you can stand up to anything!

no matter where i was deployed, i always knew that somebody had my back! you boys are your own band of brothers! you have each other! just like i had navy federal credit union... 24/7... live customer support! let's go! let's go! 4 million members. 4 million stories. navy federal credit union.

back to the future, how scientists are getting out of their labs and returning to the real world of medicine. i'm steve usdin. welcome to "biocentury this week." your trusted source for biotechnology, information and analysis, "biocentury this week"." transformative advances in modern medicine came from physician scientists with one foot in the lab and the other in the clinic. but the complexity of science has caused many researchers to lose touch with patients. today we'll hear from two leaders who are working to bring science back to a future where patients and physician researchers work together. robert califf direct as 30-year collaboration between duke university scientists and the residents of an entire